Progression of Bills through Parliament

Pippa Heylings Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the petitioners on their resilience not just this evening, but over time. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on the excellent way in which he put across the central tenets of the petition and our debate, which I think has been misrepresented by several Members, unfortunately.

I am grateful to the hundreds of constituents who wrote to me over the course of the debates on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill to share their views and perspectives. I pay tribute to all those who provided compelling, powerful and emotive evidence on, and personal testimony to, what they thought should be the choice available to people with a terminal diagnosis in their dying days.

This is also personal to me. I have long held with the principle of assisted dying, but I have had long, deep conversations with my husband over the last couple of years about the choices he would like available to him if and when his leukaemia eventually becomes terminal. I know which choices he would want to be available.

The Bill had well over 175 hours of scrutiny in both Houses, and that followed the Health and Social Care Committee hearing evidence and expert testimony on assisted dying and assisted suicide—18 months-worth in 2023-24, before the private Member’s Bill was introduced—to determine how such a Bill could be acceptable to the legislature and the public, so there was plenty of evidence, testimony and analysis before the private Member’s Bill came forward. After all that, a principle is clear to me and many constituents: legislation should succeed or fail because our elected body in Parliament has reached a decision on it—it has primacy.

The House of Lords does indeed have a role in scrutinising Bills that come before Parliament, but it works through conventions, such as self-regulation. Earlier, the Chair set a strict speaking time for today’s debate so that every single one of us could have the chance to make our points, and also to ensure that we had a timely discussion and a conclusion to the debate. That does not happen in the House of Lords because of self-regulation. The Lord Speaker also does not group amendments to make sure that there is timely progression of the proceedings. That, ultimately—because the process was abused—failed both Houses, democracy itself and faith in democracy, because the House of Lords did not allow the Bill to be returned to the Commons in time for further decision.

No matter one’s view of the Bill, I believe, like many constituents and the petitioners, that Parliament should determine the fate of any Bill. I therefore ask the Leader of the House if he will seriously consider the reform that is now needed of the procedures for the timely passage of Bills through Parliament, and his view of the relationship between both Houses and the fact that we can no longer have an unelected House of Lords that frustrates the will of the House of Commons.